Today's paper had a usage that seems very foreign to me, and seems wrong. Is it an acceptable usage? Is it familiar to you?
The task force also used the bankruptcy to overhaul GM's capital structure. This critical move greatly reduced the company's crushing debt load, substituting it with new equity instead.
In the phase "substituting it with", the with sounds out of place. It would be grammatically proper (but would reverse the meaning) to change it to "substituting it for". I would have written "replacing it with" or "substituting for it".
I have never heard of any grammatical stricture against the use of "substituting with" and the phrase seems perfectly OK to me. However, when I Googled "substituting with" I only got around 30K Ghits, but got about 655K when I searched for "substituting for". The latter use seems the more common, therefore.
Build a man a fire and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
U.S. troops have grown very adept at passing out stuff to children -- chocolate, soccer balls, school supplies -- over the last several wars. None of that says a single thing about the importance or the prospects for any military endeavor. To believe otherwise is to substitute reasoning for emotion, which is deeply irresponsible in matters of life and death.
One of my earliest memories was of US arrmed forces personel handing out such unheard of luxuries as chewing gum to we children. I can even remember the name of the two who were billeted with us: Wally and Boobly, they were called, although I have no idea how they spelled their names.
I've no idea what happened to them after the war, but my 65-year-old memories of them are still clear.
Posts: 8038 | Location: Partridge Green, West Sussex, UK